Middle Eastern Realities

Ronald Reagan vs. Barack Obama; a matter of life and death

Phil Boehmke

Today we celebrate the Ronald Reagan Centennial. Revisionists on the left
have been busy reinterpreting and recasting the life of President Reagan in an
attempt to explain his continued popularity. Time magazine photo-shopped President Reagan with his hand on Barack Obama’s
shoulder for last week’s cover in a curious attempt to link the two polar
opposites.

The gulf that separates Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama cannot be bridged by
media hype and superficial comparisons. Perhaps no issue defines the differences
between President Reagan and Mr. Obama more closely than their views on
abortion. Last month Barack Obama marked the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade by
re-affirming his unyielding support of abortion. During his lack-luster career
in the Illinois Senate, Mr. Obama revealed his extreme and radical pro-abortion
agenda.

On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak
against a bill that would have protected babies who survive late-term
labor-induced abortions…Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a
nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to
be a person who had the right to live, then the law would “forbid abortions to
take place.” Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law
deemed a child who survived a late-term abortion had a right to live, “then this
would be an anti-abortion statute.” [1]

In stark contrast to Mr. Obama’s radical views on abortion, Ronald Reagan
as a Christian, believed in the sanctity of life and sought ways to educate and
convince pro-abortion supporters to consider the rights of the unborn. In The
Reagan Diaries the president relates that he had received a wire from a woman in
Peoria, Il in response to his State of the Union speech. The woman was unhappy
with his stance on abortion and felt that he wanted to take away her freedom of
choice. Rather than write a response, President Reagan called her on the
telephone and explained that “there were 2 people‘s rights involved in
abortion-the mother‘s & the unborn child.” After what he termed “a nice
visit,” the woman promised to give the matter further thought. Ronald Reagan
noted that “I think I made a friend.” [2]

During his presidency Ronald Reagan was impressed with the new ultra-sound
procedure and predicted that the new technology would have a powerful impact on
the abortion issue. In a meeting with leaders from the Right to Life movement he
viewed a short film which showed an ultra-sound of an actual abortion being
performed. President Reagan related that the Doctor who had performed the
abortion (and some 10,000 others) was so moved by the evidence that he joined
the pro-life movement. He wrote in his diary “The movie (28 minutes long) was
most impressive & how anyone could deny that the fetus is a living human
being is beyond me.” [3]

Of course President Reagan never met Barack Obama. Standing in stark and
bloody contrast to Ronald Reagan, Mr. Obama was never swayed by evidence which
would assert that a fetus is “a living human being.”

More than once, Obama heard Illinois nurse Jill Stanek testify before the
Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, relating the following story of an aborted
Down syndrome baby who survived a late-term induced-labor abortion and was
abandoned in the hospital’s Soiled Utility Room because the baby’s parents did
not want to hold him. “I couldn’t bear the thought of this child lying alone in
a Soiled Utility Room,” Stanek testified before Obama’s committee in the
Illinois Senate. “So I cradled him and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he
lived.” Stanek reported Obama was “unfazed” by the testimony. [4]

Ronald Reagan embraced life and had a confident and simple way of
expressing the importance of each life. On July 6, 1983 he wrote:

Nancy’s Birthday! Life would be miserable if there wasn’t a Nancy’s
birthday. What if she’d never been born. I don’t want to think about that.
[5]

On Ronald Reagan’s 100th Birthday if we pause to ask, what if he had never
been born? The response would clearly be, “I don’t want to think about that.”
The United States of America was truly blessed to have had President Ronald
Reagan at the helm for eight wonderful years.

J. Matt Barber, CNSNews.com
From the instant his fruitful eight-year reign ended, Republicans have pined
for the next Ronald Reagan. To date, no man has succeeded in filling the
conservative standard-bearer’s legendary boots. Well, maybe it’s time to swap
boots for pumps. Could he be a she?
Sarah Palin, you say? Perhaps, but there’s actually another outspoken,
attractive, fearlessly conservative Tea Party favorite firing up the
center-right grass roots: Rep. Michele Bachmann, Minnesota Republican.
Forget a Senate run. The buzz inside the Beltway is that Mrs. Bachmann may be
looking to add a woman’s touch to the Oval Office (beyond just sprucing up its
temporary occupant’s eyesore decor). Her spokesman, Doug Sachtleben, has
confirmed to media that the congresswoman is considering a potential
presidential run, saying: “Nothing’s off the table.”
Mrs. Bachmann also hinted at the possibility, recently telling MinnPost.com:
“We’re going to have a deep bench for 2012, I have no doubt, and I think what
people are asking for is a bold, strong, constitutional conservative.”Read
more.

With Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele facing a barrage of calls to resign, North Dakota Republican Party Chairman Gary Emineth, a social conservative, told The Washington Times on Friday he is quitting his post to prepare a possible challenge of Mr. Steele after November’s midterm elections.

Also on Friday, prominent neoconservatives led by William Kristol and Liz Cheney began a growing chorus demands that Mr. Steele step down now, before the Nov. 2 midterm congressional and gubernatorial elections and before he can decide whether to seek reelection to a second two-year term in January.

Mr. Emineth said what moved him to consider a bid for national chairman is what he called Mr. Steele’s dismal failure with big donors who are giving to other, more trusted GOP campaign organizations as polls continue to show Republicans, if adequately financed, stand a good chance of regaining control of Congress.

“I was shocked at the last RNC meeting to learn how little money we got from our major donors,” Mr. Emineth told The Times.

Mr. Emineth said he is resigning as state chairman to devote more time to his expanding burrito-manufacturing business. Resigning now has the added advantage of freeing him to campaign for national party chairman after Nov. 2.

Like other RNC members, Mr. Emineth has refrained from criticizing Mr. Steele until now, and until now no prominent Republican has called for Mr. Steele’s head.

What suddenly triggered resignation demands from the influential neoconservatives wing of the GOP — its foreign-policy hawks — was Mr. Steele’s saying in Connecticut on Thursday that Afghanistan is President Obama’s war and one that should not have been fought in the first place. (Click here to see the video.)

The social and neoconservative wings of the party, with their shared concern for the safety of Israel and focus on “Islamo-fascism,” have decided that Mr. Steele — the author of numerous gaffes in the past — has crossed the line this time.

On Friday, Mr. Kristol, editor of the neoconservative Weekly Standard, said in an open letter to Mr. Steele: “Your comment is more than an embarrassment. It’s an affront — both to the honor of the Republican Party and to the commitment of the soldiers fighting.”

Ms. Cheney, the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, told Politico that the “chairman of the Republican party must be unwavering in his support for American victory in the war on terror — a victory that cannot be accomplished if we do not prevail in Afghanistan. I endorse fully Bill Kristol’s letter to Chairman Steele. It is time for Chairman Steele to step down.”

In his missive, Mr. Kristol pointed out that the “war in Afghanistan was not ‘a war of Obama’s choosing.’ … It has been prosecuted by the United States under Presidents Bush and Obama. Republicans have consistently supported the effort.”

Skepticism about the war is shared by many traditional conservatives such as commentator George F. Will.

“There are, of course, those who think we should pull out of Afghanistan, and they’re certainly entitled to make their case. But one of them shouldn’t be the chairman of the Republican party,” Mr. Kristol said.

Hinting that Mr. Steele’s stand might undermine the war effort, the Democratic National Committee jumped on RNC chairman’s remarks, circulated on a video of his appearance at a small GOP fundraiser in Connecticut.

Among members of Mr. Steele’s own committee, however, the disappointment with him has grown in proportion to the disappointment with his fundraising efforts.

“I have raised more money per capita for my party in my tiny state than New York or any other big state has raised for its party, but North Dakota gets no financial support from the RNC,” Mr. Emineth said,

“The real contribution from a chairman is the ability to raise money from major donors,” said Mr. Emineth. “We raised $400,000 in a single night in Fargo, North Dakota. Chairman Steele has managed to raise only $2 million from major donors all told.”

“At times his hands-off approach to managing the national committee and his miscues have hurt the party,” Mr. Emineth said. “He has been disappointing to many members.”

In later posting the following words on the RNC’s website, Mr. Steele appeared to eat his earlier words on Afghanistan — and stand by them at the same time.

“As we enter the Fourth of July weekend, I proudly remember standing with Maryland National Guardsmen on their way to the Middle East and later stood with the mothers of soldiers lost at war. There is no question that America must win the war on terror.

“During the 2008 Presidential campaign, Barack Obama made clear his belief that we should not fight in Iraq, but instead concentrate on Afghanistan. Now, as President, he has indeed shifted his focus to this region. That means this is his strategy. And, for the sake of the security of the free world, our country must give our troops the support necessary to win this war.

“As we have learned throughout history, winning a war in Afghanistan is a difficult task. We must also remember that after the tragedy of September 11, 2001, it is also a necessary one. That is why I supported the decision to increase our troop force and, like the entire United States Senate, I support General Petraeus’ confirmation. The stakes are too high for us to accept anything but success in Afghanistan.”

Calls for Steele’s resignation grow louder

Rick Moran

The RNC chairman’s comments about Afghanistan were pretty clueless, but I think the growing chorus from GOP heavyweights for Michael Steele to step down is a cumulative effect of his verbal gaffes rather than this particular instance of idiocy.

You are, I know, a patriot. So I ask you to consider, over this July 4 weekend, doing an act of service for the country you love: Resign as chairman of the Republican party.Your tenure has of course been marked by gaffes and embarrassments, but I for one have never paid much attention to them, and have never thought they would matter much to the success of the causes and principles we share. But now you have said, about the war in Afghanistan, speaking as RNC chairman at an RNC event, “Keep in mind again, federal candidates, this was a war of Obama’s choosing. This was not something that the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in.” And, “if [Obama] is such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that’s the one thing you don’t do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan?”

Needless to say, the war in Afghanistan was not “a war of Obama’s choosing.” It has been prosecuted by the United States under Presidents Bush and Obama. Republicans have consistently supported the effort. Indeed, as the DNC Communications Director (of all people) has said, your statement “puts [you] at odds with about 100 percent of the Republican Party.”

I think he should have resigned after the fund raising scandals last spring, but GOP insiders thought differently. Now he has not only undercut his own party, but has shown himself to be out of touch with candidates for office who support our mission in Afghanistan.

Steele will likely force the GOP to fire him, knowing how bad it would look for the party to fire one of the few visible blacks in a leadership position. He has banked on this before, but it might not save him this time.

FEDS INVESTIGATING McCAIN DONORS AS HIS CAMPAIGN LIES TO MEDIA ABOUT RETURNING DIRTY MONEY FROM CROOKED LAW FIRM
Phoenix, AZ (JUNE 10) – Sen. John McCain must personally and publicly explain why he allowed his staff to lie to the media about returning all $1.1 million given to his presidential campaign by a convicted felon; if he accepted even more from the felon’s law partners; and why he has not donated all the dirty money to charity as his campaign claimed.

Federal authorities have been investigating 30 lawyers who worked in the now-defunct firm of Scott Rothstein, who yesterday was sentenced to 50 years in prison for running an elaborate Ponzi scheme.

According to his lawyer and media reports, the convicted felon is giving up the names of people involved and has even gone “undercover” which will likely lead to the arrest of lawyers, business associates and perhaps even politicians.

Tomorrow, Rothstein’s chief operating officer, who personally gave McCain’s political committees at least $30,000, is scheduled to plead guilty to assorted criminal activity.

The lawyers, along with 15 other Rothstein employees, made about $2.2 million in state and federal campaign contributions while he was running the Ponzi scheme from 2005 to 2009.

“McCain is knee-deep in this scandal and he needs to come clean,” said Mark Sanders, spokesman for U.S. Senate Candidate J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ). “He first lied to the media when his campaign said the entire $1.1 million Rothstein collected was given to charity and it was old news. Then he tried to cover it up by saying he gave back the few thousand dollars Rothstein and his wife gave directly.”

Federal officials are examining Rothstein’s use of money from his $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme to pay salaries and give huge bonuses to senior attorneys on the condition that they donate generously to his favorite politicians, including McCain.

“Rothstein and his wife Kimberly held fundraisers for McCain,” Sanders said. “His partner Stuart Rosenfeldt and his wife Susanne gave to McCain and to others, including Florida Gov. Charlie Crist.

“McCain likes to say character matters, but he is displaying his lack of it by keeping the $1.1 million and returning to Rothstein two small individual contributions,” Sanders said.

One employee close to Rothstein, chief operating officer Debra Villegas, donated about $46,000 to McCain, other politicians and political committees in Florida. They gave the dirty money back, while McCain kept his million.

“Everybody seems to get it but McCain,” Sanders said. “He needs to fully account for the distribution of the money he collected from everyone at this corrupt firm and explain to Arizona voters why accepting and keeping money gained from a criminal activity makes him worthy to serve in any public office.”

The racketeering charges against Rothstein allege that the firm’s donations to politicians and campaign committees were largely illegal because they were funded with money from the now-disbarred lawyer’s illegal Ponzi scheme.

“According to media reports, agents for the FBI and the IRS are investigating campaign records to determine how Rothstein used his investment scam to fund the political donations,” Sanders said. “Their next stop needs to be in Phoenix to interview McCain. If he didn’t know how his top contributor was making money he should have. Ignorance is not a defense when this contributor is the number one donor to the ‘McCain Victory 2008′ fund and the ‘McCain-Palin Victory 2008′ fund.”

Sanders said McCain should not try to hide behind his spokesman when it comes to answering these questions.

“McCain’s mouthpiece is the same guy who lied to the media in the first place and prior to joining the Senator’s campaign was the research director for Al Gore while Gore was trying to convince everyone that planet Earth was about to turn into a fireball because of global warming,” Sanders said. “It’s time for Mr. McCain to step up and personally disavow his acceptance of more than a million dollars he took from a convicted felon.”

J.D. Hayworth says he’ll run against U.S. Sen. John McCain

PHOENIX — Former Arizona Congressman J.D. Hayworth says he is planning to run against John McCain for his U.S. Senate seat.

Hayworth, a Republican, told The Associated Press late Friday he stepped down as host of his radio program on KFYI-AM, a conservative radio talk show in Phoenix. Legally, he would not have been able to remain host of the program and be an active candidate.

Hayworth was ousted from his Congressional seat in 2006 after 12 years in office by Democrat Harry Mitchell, and has hosted the radio show for the past few years.

“We will formally announce at a later time, but we’re moving forward to challenge John McCain,” he said. “I think we all respect John. I think his place in history is secure. But after close to a quarter-century in Washington, it’s time for him to come home.”

He said he wasn’t serious about running against McCain until a recent “outpouring of support” from Arizonans asking him to run changed his mind.

“Arizonans have a clear choice — a clear, commonsense, consistent conservative, or they can remain with a moderate who calls himself a maverick,” Hayworth said.

Political experts say they are skeptical that Hayworth can raise enough money to mount a political campaign against McCain.

“Cook Political Report” analyst Jennifer Duffy said Hayworth would need to raise a minimum of $2 million to run a decent primary against McCain, who had already stashed away $5 million for the race by late last month, according to the group Friends of John McCain Inc., in a report to the Federal Election Commission.

Meanwhile, McCain recently announced that Sarah Palin would campaign in Arizona with him in March in their first such appearance since their unsuccessful bid as running mates in the 2008 presidential campaign.

The former Alaska governor is scheduled to attend a private fundraising event in Phoenix on March 26. The next day, she and McCain will appear together at a public event, likely a rally.

‘Clean’ conservatives vs. ‘dirty’ liberals

Rick Moran
Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit has the proof in pictures; conservatives clean up after themselves while liberals let the government take care of their trash.

Hoft has a photo essay that shows the aftermath of the Mall following the 9/12 protests compared to the condition of the same venue following President Obama’s inauguration.

The difference is striking.

Washington Mall after 9/12 protest.

Washington Mall after Obama Inauguration

Is it a legitimate point to be made, that the difference in the condition of the Mall following the two events says something revealing about the two sides?

I don’t see how you can escape it. Without getting into a numbers game (and acknowledging that the inauguration crowd was bigger), it should be obvious that one side takes responsibility for their actions while the other does not. This denotes not only respect for public property, but also it reveals that conservatives have a sense of ownership relating to that property. Owners will care for their property more assiduously than non-owners. Conservatives consider themselves stakeholders in the country, seeing it as their individual concern to make better.

On the other hand, liberals don’t see public property as their concern, but rather that of the government. When everyone owns the land, no one is responsible for it in their calculation. Thoughtless littering is simply a manifestation of their belief that it’s someone else’s job to clean up after me. Not my problem since it’s not my land.